Reading Reform Across America: The most interesting thing I read this summer…

While on vacation this summer, I happily took a break from my family and read this recent report from the Shanker Institute that catalogs and compares legislative efforts to improve reading instruction across different states. It’s great. Honestly, it’s probably the most interesting thing about reading that I read this summer. You should take an hour or two and read the full report yourself. But if you don’t have the time, I’ll share my favorite article, blog, and Twitter (X?) thread on the topic. 

Over a month later, I’m still thinking about this report for two very different reasons. 

First, if you’re still claiming that “the science of reading” is a conservative conspiracy theory, you need to read this report…and stop making that claim. 

Yes, it’s absolutely true that hate groups like Moms for Liberty use “science of reading” as a cudgel to attack and delegitimize public schools. 

And yet, before Moms for Liberty came along, red, blue, and purple state legislatures alike were taking action on reading instruction. And they still are. Some states are doing it better than others, as the authors make clear, but improving reading instruction was and continues to be a bipartisan issue. Let’s keep it that way. 

The other thing this report got me thinking about was all of the different reading resources and iniatives that different state departments of education are creating outside the legislative process. I want to read an analogue report that explores this topic more broadly: what policies, initiatives, and resources are state DoEs developing to transform reading instruction? 

Two examples from two different states immediately spring to mind!

First, in my home state of Massachusetts, DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) administers a grant program where schools and districts can apply for supplemental funding to adopt high-quality core curricular materials for literacy. Grant money can be spent on the new curriculum itself or the initial training and professional development for the new curriculum. Priority is given to schools and districts that are de-implementing certain curricula that have been deemed ineffective (you know which ones). This program is the brainchild of Katherine Tarca, MA’s Director of Literacy and Humanities. 

In ruby red Tennessee, on the other hand, under the leadership of Lisa Coons, the Department of Education offers a free foundational skills curriculum (Tennessee Foundational Skills Curriculum Supplement or TNFSCS) to all K-2nd grade teachers. Likely even more crucially, Tennessee has created its own in-state professional development program, Reading 360, that equips teachers with both theoretical and practical knowledge to implement structured literacy in their classrooms. Interesting stuff, right? 

I happen to know about these programs because I spend a lot of time on Twitter. But I’m desperate to know about other similar initiatives! How are other DoEs leveraging their budgets and departmental policies to support teachers who want to learn more about the science of reading? How are they creating buy-in among superintendents and principals? How are they making it easier for teachers to pilot better curricula? How are they creating efficient and practical professional learning opportunities for teachers? How are they compensating teachers for their time? 

I also want to know who the other Katherine Tarcas and Lisa Coons are–I’m sure they’re out there–and I want to learn from them. 

Inevitably, this analogue report would be harder to write and compile–where do you even begin? But when I think about changing the way reading is taught, when I think about persuading teachers and school leaders that this whole structured literacy thing isn’t just another initiative that will die on the vine after a few years, I’m way more optimistic about bottom-up, opt-in initiatives that incentivize educators and recognize that educational change cannot be mandated overnight.